Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210401212148.47033-1-jim2101024@gmail.com> <20210401212148.47033-3-jim2101024@gmail.com>
 <20210406164708.GM6443@sirena.org.uk> <CANCKTBsiujTkOdh60etBqF_hE8exg6m9TDxkGHVVAGVS2SFCcQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210406173211.GP6443@sirena.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20210406173211.GP6443@sirena.org.uk>
From:   Jim Quinlan <jim2101024@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 6 Apr 2021 14:25:49 -0400
Message-ID: <CANCKTBv63b4bGepZbDp1wmFrOeddiDikoXbheMjHhbguAbR2sA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] dt-bindings: PCI: Add bindings for Brcmstb
 endpoint device voltage regulators
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-pci <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
        Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@suse.de>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com>,
        Jim Quinlan <james.quinlan@broadcom.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:BROADCOM BCM2711/BCM2835 ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "moderated list:BROADCOM BCM2711/BCM2835 ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 1:32 PM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 01:26:51PM -0400, Jim Quinlan wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 12:47 PM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> > > No great problem with having these in the controller node (assming it
> > > accurately describes the hardware) but I do think we ought to also be
> > > able to describe these per slot.
>
> > Can you explain what you think that would look like in the DT?
>
> I *think* that's just some properties on the nodes for the endpoints,
> note that the driver could just ignore them for now.  Not sure where or
> if we document any extensions but child nodes are in section 4 of the
> v2.1 PCI bus binding.

Hi Mark,

I'm a little confused -- here is how I remember the chronology of the
"DT bindings" commit reviews, please correct me if I'm wrong:

o JimQ submitted a pullreq for using voltage regulators in the same
style as the existing "rockport" PCIe driver.
o After some deliberation, RobH preferred that the voltage regulators
should go into the PCIe subnode device's DT node.
o JimQ put the voltage regulators in the subnode device's DT node.
o MarkB didn't like the fact that the code did a global search for the
regulator since it could not provide the owning struct device* handle.
o RobH relented, and said that if it is just two specific and standard
voltage regulators, perhaps they can go in the parent DT node after
all.
o JimQ put the regulators back in the PCIe node.
o MarkB now wants the regulators to go back into the child node again?

Folks, please advise.

Regards,
Jim Quinlan
Broadcom STB